4.4 Article

Impact of chronic kidney disease on prognosis of patients with diabetes mellitus treated with percutaneous coronary intervention

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 94, 期 3, 页码 300-305

出版社

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2004.04.023

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a frequent complication of diabetes mellitus. However, the role of CKD in outcomes of patients with diabetes who have undergone percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has not been studied specifically. Therefore, we investigated the impact of CKD on prognosis of patients with diabetes who underwent PCI. Of 1,575 diabetic patients who underwent PCI, 1,046 (66%) had preserved renal function, 492 (31%) had CKD (baseline serum creatinine > 1.5 mg/dl or estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 ml/ min/1.73 m(2)) without dialysis, and 37 (2.3%) were dependent on dialysis. Patients with CKD versus those without CKD had more in-hospital complications, including mortality (2.6% vs 0.5%, respectively; p < 0.0001), neurologic events (3.1% vs 0.6%, p = 0.0001), and gastrointestinal bleeding (2.9% vs 0.9%, p = 0.01). Contrast-induced nephropathy after PCI (increase greater than or equal to 25% and/or greater than or equal to 0.5 mg/dl of serum creatinine before PCI vs 48 hours after PCI) was found in 15% of patients without CKD versus 27% of those with CKD, and de nova dialysis was instituted in 0.1% versus 3.1%, respectively. Cantrast-induced nephropathy was independently predicted (all p < 0.0001) by peri-PCI hypotension (odds ratio [OR] 2.62), insulin treatment (OR 1.84), and volume of contrast medium (OR 1.30). The 1-year mortality rate was strikingly higher (all p < 0.0001) in patients with CKD who did not receive dialysis (16%) and those on dialysis (44%) compared with the group with preserved renal function (5%). Contrast-induced nephropathy was among the independent predictors of a 1-year mortality rate (OR 2.75, p < 0.001). (C) 2004 by Excerpta Medica, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据